Precisely - now substitute 'vacuum decay' for 'machine gun' in Max Tegmark's
quantum suicide experiment, and you see that it would not matter if we were
in suce a region.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: 08 December 1998 21:50
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: experiments and MWI (fwd)
>
> These vacuum decays must involve energies that make it negligibly
> possible for any human observers (out of 5x10^10) to survive -
> otherwise they would have been observed already. That's one hell of a
> bang - makes the KT event look like an afternoon tea party.
>
> I suspect the anthropic principle keeps us out of such region of the
> universe, in which case we're unlikely to see the SM parameters having
> those values.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Forwarded message:
> > From everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden Wed Dec 9 00:11 EST 1998
> > Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 04:57:11 -0800
> > Message-Id: <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED1B8A44.domain.name.hidden>
> > From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: "'Rainer Plaga'" <plaga.domain.name.hidden>
> > Cc: "'avoid-l.domain.name.hidden'" <avoid-l.domain.name.hidden.edu>,
> > "'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
> > Subject: RE: experiments and MWI
> > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:55:29 -0000
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> > Resent-Message-ID: <"I9yFK2.0.Lj2.c8IRs".domain.name.hidden>
> > Resent-From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > X-Mailing-List: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden> archive/latest/176
> > X-Loop: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Precedence: list
> > Resent-Sender: everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> > Content-Length: 3414
> >
> > Hi, Rainer.
> >
> > I am pleased to be in a universe in which your plane did not crash.
> >
> > On your first point, thanks - agreed. Also, Vic seems to imply that
> there
> > are two types of system - quantum and non-quantum. A 'quantum effect'
> can
> > make a difference to a hot, wet classical system. I have cc'd this to
> Vic
> > Stenger's list.
> >
> > On point 2, I have to concede that you are right, and we must hope that
> an
> > experiment such as the one you proposed could be undertaken to prove the
> > valifity of MWI. That doesn't mean that the exploration of the
> consequences
> > of MWI is not a useful pursuit here and now.
> >
> > On point 3, my quantum theory of immortality would make vacuum decays,
> no
> > matter how common, imperceptible to us as we continue in those universes
> in
> > which there has been no decay. This is an interesting avenue to pursue.
> >
> > James
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rainer Plaga [SMTP:plaga.domain.name.hidden]
> > > Sent: 08 December 1998 12:29
> > > To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> > > Subject: experiments and MWI
> > >
> > > Hello James,
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > Vic's criticism seems justified in the
> > > sense that you didn't prove immortality,
> > > only extreme longevity seems very plausible.
> > > On the other hand I do not understand his
> > > point about mixtures. There are no
> > > ``true mixtures'' in the MWI, only one
> > > pure state of which we perceive a very small
> > > part. So he seems to be outside
> > > strict MWI with his argument.
> > >
> > > 2.
> > > I thought about your point that
> > > you don't need experimental evidence
> > > in favor of MWI, that it's (undisputed) elegance
> > > is sufficient.
> > >
> > > In the end I find this point of view
> > > (which seems close to the one of Max)
> > > sterile, it can hamper progress.
> > >
> > > Imagine people would have been content
> > > in 1890 with the ``elegance'' of Boltzmann's
> > > indirect thermodynamical evidence in favour
> > > of atoms.
> > > The wish to find direct evidence
> > > in favor of single atoms was an important
> > > driving force in the early days of quantum physics.
> > >
> > > In other words: I'm convinced that direct
> > > evidence for MWI will lead to a qualitatively new
> > > understanding of the quantum world.
> > > I doubt that purely theoretical or philosophical
> > > work on the MWI will ever lead to this, the
> > > problems are too complicated.
> > >
> > > 3.
> > > Counterexample to a theorem ``direct experimental evidence
> > > against alternatives to the MWI'' can't be found
> > > (like one Max seems to have in mind: ``Copenhagen
> > > always leads to the same phenomenology'').
> > >
> > > There exist parameter regions in the Standard Model
> > > of particle physics
> > > where the vacuum is metastable. Single
> > > quantum events, which raise the energy density
> > > (e.g. particle collisions) then lead
> > > to the decay of our vacuum to a more
> > > stable form: this would kill humanity.
> > >
> > > Normally this is taken as evidence that
> > > the SM does not have such parameters.
> > > In the MWI this argument does not hold
> > > of course. Each vacuum decay
> > > has only a certain probability, so there
> > > are always surviving humanities.
> > > (This is very close to my ``atom bomb''
> > > alteration of Max's suicide test of MWI).
> > > In other words: if future research on the SM
> > > would prove that the parameters are such
> > > that the vacuum is metastable, this would
> > > be direct (and non byzantine or
> > > macabre) evidence for the MWI.
> > >
> > > Of course it might well be that such paramters are not found,
> > > however any general theorem about the untestability of MWI
> > > is doubtful.
> > >
> > > All the best Rainer
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 7123
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Wed Dec 09 1998 - 02:00:22 PST